The Times wants your views: DNA ethnicity results

[Mike in Cumbria]

What I wish is that people who are considering this test, or commenting on these "ethnicity" results, would read up just a bit on autosomal DNA and what it can and can't tell us -- and what these "ethnicity" components actually mean.

I'm afraid that comes across as rather patronising. Some of us do know rather a lot about genetics. Hopefully it wasn't meant as such.

[aghadowey]

Many, many people have absolutely no clue about their ancestors so not sure how you can be so sure that "Pretty much everybody there, especially someone with known Hispanic/Latino ancestors, knows perfectly well that there is almost certainly an indigenous element present in their ancestry. For someone in the US with Hispanic ancestors to come from a line descended from Spanish colonizers of whom none had indigenous spouses would be extremely rare."

Your statements totally ignore one group of people that unfortunately probably don't have any information about possible ancestry- adopted people.

[JaneyCanuck]

Mike ...

It's a shame when people who do not know anything about genetics think they are being patronised or condescended to when it is pointed out that they are speaking from lack of knowledge.

Forgive my ignorance, but what the heck is one supposed to say when that happens? Yes, your opinion, based on ignorance of the facts as it is, is valuable and well worth consideration by someone wanting to know about (whatever the subject is) - ? When people say things that are incorrect, or that are contrary to science, what is one supposed to say?

Pretty obviously, that last comment of mine was not directed at you specifically or personally. Pretty obviously, it was a comment on the amount of comment in this thread, about many apsects of this testing and the results it produces, that is not based on any knowledge of genetics.

I will refer again to what Davidft said way back in the thread:

Autosomal DNA
In my opinion this is a pseudo-science and there are more than a few charlatans offering tests in this area. The reason why I say it is a pseudo-science is although there is some science behind the subject there are too many unknowns and assumptions for the claims that are made for the ethnic predictions made.

-- the big unknown stemming from the random nature of the autosomal DNA one inherits from one's parents -- it is simply not an arithmetical formula. One's own atDNA could have virtually no percentage from a particular grandparent (whose own atDNA could have been skewed drastically as well), for instance. So no "percentage" breakdown of the ethnicity of one's atDNA (even if it were accurate) can tell a person anything at all about their actual ancestors.

That's the simple reason why Ancestry-type "ethnicity" results from atDNA analysis are completely useless for genealogical purposes.

[JaneyCanuck]

Many, many people have absolutely no clue about their ancestors so not sure how you can be so sure that "Pretty much everybody there, especially someone with known Hispanic/Latino ancestors, knows perfectly well that there is almost certainly an indigenous element present in their ancestry. For someone in the US with Hispanic ancestors to come from a line descended from Spanish colonizers of whom none had indigenous spouses would be extremely rare."

Because I know what I'm talking about ... because I was talking about the specific population of people in the USA with Latino ancestry.

It turned out -- I learned by researching the subject of the discussion, Kim Trujillo, as set out in my post above, in order to know more about what I was talking about -- that there is a particular population, in the US state of New Mexico, that actually is (wilfully) ignorant of their indigenous ancestry, which historical and archaeological evidence was already pointing to.

Your statements totally ignore one group of people that unfortunately probably don't have any information about possible ancestry- adopted people.

Oh my, how insensitive of me. It also ignored people like me, whose great-grandfathers assumed a false identity ...

Adopted people generally use atDNA analysis to try to find matches who are cousins of some sort, so they can then use traditional genealogical methods to try to determine who their common ancestor is. For them to rely on it to tell them their "ethnicity" would be as foolish as for anyone else to do so.

As for the "ethnicity" business, all I can do is repeat myself ...

The big unknown stems from the random nature of the autosomal DNA one inherits from one's parents -- it is simply not an arithmetical formula. One's own atDNA could have virtually no percentage, or a very large percentage, from a particular grandparent (whose own atDNA could have been skewed drastically as well), for instance. So no "percentage" breakdown of the ethnicity of one's atDNA (even if it were accurate) can tell a person anything at all about their actual ancestors.

That's the simple reason why Ancestry-type "ethnicity" results from atDNA analysis are completely useless for genealogical purposes.

The ethnic breakdown of one's atDNA is not indicative of the proportion of any ethnicity among one's ancestors.

[Malcolm33]

I didn't realise they included  Scottish ancestry with Ireland - it makes sense but I can't find anywhere in the information they provide that says that. It also confuses our results somewhat. Can anyone find the info that the Celtic ancestors are all grouped together? Thanks.

    In reality Celtic includes Hebrew Egyptian from as far back as at least the 18th Dynasty Kings of Egypt - Solomon - 4 of them, and David - 5 of them.   Their Ydna is R1b1a2 which is exactly the same as the majority of males in all of Britain - about 90% in England and as high as 98% in Connaught.    We have a common ancestor who lived somewhere near the Black Sea some 9,500 years ago.    Apart from the Egyptian skeletal remains in Ireland and the Egyptian ships in the Humber Estuary at Ferriby there are two Irish legends which name the Egyptian Kings Abel and Kain - even Horus and some are prefixed by their god names 'IU' which according to Massey is the origin of the name 'Jew'.    The double water reed glyph god name can also be read as an abbreviation 'YW' for Yah Weh.    Yah, Iah,, or Lah was the name of a Moon God and the letter W was the Egyptian plural letter like our 'S', added because they saw that the Moon had many aspects from Crescent to Full Moon, whilst the children of the east (Arabs) insisted that it was One - hence AL-LAH, yet they still have a Crescent and Full Moon disc on top of their Mosques.   Few of them realize that they are still worshipping the Moon.

[JaneyCanuck]

I just want to quote Deb again, from page 25 -- she is one of our resident actual experts in this field.

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding in this thread about what DNA can and can't tell you. The ethnicity results aren't very helpful but autosomal DNA tests are sold primarily for cousin matching and not for the ethnicity results.

AncestryDNA and the Family Finder test from Family Tree DNA are used by genealogists from all over the world as a tool for genealogical research just in the same way that we use BMD records and census records. I can't understand any genealogist wanting to turn down the opportunity to have an additional record that might help them with their family history research. It will also give you the chance to connect with genetic cousins who might have more information on the family tree than you have. As with any record you get, the results don't always immediately fit in with the records that you already have. I've often paid for paper records that I've not been able to use. Also not everyone gets meaningful matches at the outset. However, the databases are growing all the time. Over three million people worldwide are already in these databases. Americans do tend to dominate the match lists but there are growing numbers of Brits, Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders, etc. taking these tests. Also I've heard of a number of cases where matches with Americans have actually broken down the brick wall.* I've now got confirmed matches with a third cousin, a third cousin once removed and a fourth cousin. The more people who test the more success we will all have.

Cousin-finding tests are also being used by adoptees, foundlings and donor-conceived children, and are solving mysteries that were previously insoluble. We are seeing stories virtually every day of people finding matches in the databases and being linked with unknown half-siblings, first cousins and sometimes even finding their biological parents. Contrary to one assertion in this thread an autosomal DNA test can definitively confirm a parent/child relationship. It can also distinguish between full siblings and half-siblings.

... Anyone wanting to learn more about DNA testing might like to have a read of some of the beginners' articles in the ISOGG Wiki:

http://isogg.org/wiki/Beginners'_guides_to_genetic_genealogy

* (note - This was exactly the case for me with my maternal grandfather's YDNA - the match is in the US, but from the same part of Cornwall. My atDNA test may refine the match, but it is probably beyond the 5th-cousin level.)


Autosomal DNA can be very useful for finding actual living relatives and then pooling resources to trace ancestors. Paying for an atDNA test to get "ethnicity" results is like having your horoscope done.

[aghadowey]

It's a shame when people who do not know anything about genetics think they are being patronised or condescended to when it is pointed out that they are speaking from lack of knowledge.

It doesn't matter how much you think you know about this subject- the problem is that you will not allow anyone else to make a comment or have a point of view that does not support your thoughts on the matter.

I'm afraid DNA is not a topic that interests me enough to put up with being spoken to this way or watching rude comments to other people's posts so will stop reading anymore here 

[JaneyCanuck]

In reality Celtic includes Hebrew Egyptian from as far back as at least the 18th Dynasty Kings of Egypt - Solomon - 4 of them, and David - 5 of them.   Their Ydna is R1b1a2 which is exactly the same as the majority of males in all of Britain - about 90% in England and as high as 98% in Connaught.    We have a common ancestor who lived somewhere near the Black Sea some 9,500 years ago.

My father's YDNA -- male-line ancestors in Wiltshire back to earliest records in 1500 -- is I-M223, rare in England (3-4% in that part of England).
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_I2_Y-DNA.shtml

It is associated with the pre-Celto-Germanic people of north-Western Europe, such as the megaliths builders (5000-1200 BCE). Its age has been estimated between 21,000 and 13,000 years old, which corresponds to the Epipaleolithic period.

I2a2 is found in most of Europe and could have had a continent-wide distribution before the arrival of Neolithic farmers. Although it hasn't been identified in the few Mesolithic Y-DNA samples available as of 2016, I2a2a was found in Neolithic Spain and in southern Russia during the Yamna culture, at each extremity of Europe...

Maybe my atDNA test will show me as 50% Hispanic ... 

[JaneyCanuck]

It doesn't matter how much you think you know about this subject- the problem is that you will not allow anyone else to make a comment or have a point of view that does not support your thoughts on the matter.

I'm afraid DNA is not a topic that interests me enough to put up with being spoken to this way or watching rude comments to other people's posts so will stop reading anymore here 

Feel free to do what you like! Free speech ... it means saying whatever you like and listening to whatever you like -- or not listening, and not saying anything.

That actually applies to everybody. Including me. 

And of course what this power is that I wield, of "not allowing" someone else to do anything at all ... 

I've already asked how one avoids this very English definition of "rude" when one is pointing out that something someone has said is simply incorrect. I've actually waited a long time for an explanation of that.

Not all opinions are as good as each other. The idea that they are is actually a very USAmerican notion.

Maybe not writing post after post just to chide someone else based on one's personal definition of good manners isn't exactly good manners.